Ezra Klein's venomous slam of Joe Lieberman

Thwarted in his bid for the vice presidency in 2000 and thwarted again in his campaign for the presidency in 2004, Sen. Joe Lieberman (?-Conn.) nevertheless retains one awesome power: the capacity to make some liberals lose their minds.

How else to explain the outrageous smear of Lieberman, posted earlier today by youthful policy wonk Ezra Klein on The Post's Web site? Apropos of Lieberman's opposition to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's proposed Medicare buy-in for uninsured people between the ages of 55 and 64, Klein had this to say: "At this point, Lieberman seems primarily motivated by torturing liberals. That is to say, he seems willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in order to settle an old electoral score." (Emphasis mine.)

Let me repeat: Klein essentially accuses Lieberman of mass murder because he disagrees with him on a policy issue about which there is considerable debate among people of good will across the political spectrum.

This is disgusting, and pretty illogical, too. Klein brandishes a study by the Urban Institute showing that the lack of health insurance contributed to the deaths of 137,000 people between 2000 and 2006. But last time I checked, Joe Lieberman does not oppose insuring everyone. Indeed, he is on record favoring "legislation that expands access to the millions who do not have coverage, improves quality and lowers costs while not impeding our economic recovery or increasing the debt." He simply opposes the public option, as well as Harry Reid's last-minute improvisation on Medicare. Klein's outburst only makes sense if you assume that there is one conceivable way to expand health insurance coverage, and that Harry Reid has discovered it.

And, by the way, Lieberman is hardly alone in his skepticism, even among Democrats. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) pronounced Reid's proposal a "non-starter." Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) has voiced doubts. Ten Democratic senators -- including such right-wingers as Al Franken of Minnesota and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin -- signed a letter complaining that Reid's idea would shortchange their states. Reports the Portland Oregonian: "While they did not directly say it, the senators implied that they might not vote for the bill unless the Medicare problems are addressed. That threat has some power, as Reid needs all 60 Democratic votes to pass the bill."

Are these Senators guilty of risking mass death as well?

Joe Lieberman is an odd political duck, to put it mildly. I understand that he seems to bear a grudge against the Democratic liberals who tried to unseat him in 2006 because of his vote for the war in Iraq, and that he might be engaged in a little pay back right now. Perhaps he's shilling for his home state insurance interests, as if no other senator would ever do such a thing.

But his position on the Medicare buy-in is hardly beyond the pale. That's more than you can say for Ezra Klein's venomous post.

Fifty-six percent (56%) of U.S. voters now oppose the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That's the highest level of opposition found - reached three times before - in six months of polling.

I disagree that he is trying to settle an old score. Could it be he is a senator from CT. Insurance capital of the world. He is the pawn of the insurance industry and telling his regular constituants that he represents the insurance companies interests and not theirs.

Oh please spare me your crocodile tears for Senator Lieberman. What is venomous is not the attacks but the 45,000 Americans who die each year because they lack access to our health care system per the oft-quoted Harvard University study. To date Lieberman has offered no constructive input to solve this tragedy and has instead attempted to attack every attempt by Democrats to lessen the death toll.

If you can come up with an example of GOP or Lieberman good will, I'm waiting. So far all I have seen is gridlock and laughable proposals that netural observers note will worsen the situation.

So yes there is blood on Senator Lieberman's hands as well as the entire GOP caucus and some of the worst of the Blue Dog Democrats.

Oh, boo, hoo. Back biter Lieberman is now to play the victim card? That snake has left a trail of destruction and has proven to belong in the Republican caucus. No criticism of him could be anymore deserved nor could it be venomous enough. Thanks for nothing, Connecticut. And thanks for nothing to those in the Democratic party who continued to support his candidacy after he lost the primary.

Seriously -- calling Klein's attack "beyond the pale" is just the usual right-wing bs. Lieberman deserves all the scorn he gets. If he wants to explain why he has the nation's best interests in mind instead of he's own, then let him. But Joe is all about Joe and nobody else.

Anyone whose wife works for the insurers can't be trusted to give the rest of us unbiased advice, although with the 55-65 coverage he's right and public option dead wrong. The bill does not go far enough to reduce costs, and tends to make a bad situation, rural coverage worse. It does not address our med schools graduating a majority of high cost specialists when a majority of GPs and obstertricians are needed. Picking up the uninsured losses of 30 million without holding hospitals/providers to the 90% on treatment/equipment rule with have them put that coin into their pocket and not reduce prices.

If Lieberman derails health care reform, he should have to pay a price. I mean, this is someone who has already contributed to derailing Obama's policy of putting pressure on Israel. How many other desperately needed reforms will this man be allowed to torpedo?

Life without Lieberman in the Democratic caucus might be a good thing. It would force the Democrats to compromise with Republicans to make legislation and that might be a very good thing for the country if it would include action on things like tort reform.

Klein was right on in what he was saying. Lieberman is playing a payback game to the Democrats for backing Lamont in the 2008 Primary. Lieberman should be thrown out of the Democratic caucus on his ear. My understanding is that even people from Connecticut don't feel he is properly representing their state or doing the best thing for the country.

Is the compassionate, caring Charles Lane in this article the same Charles Lane who in another article today advocates a rollback of the minimum wage?

In his next article, Charles Lane will tell us why the 13th Amendment to the Constitution should be repealed so that rich white people can provide room and board for all those poor African Americans who are out of work.

I can't imagine anything that is said about Lieberman that would be too strong. Certainly, what you have quoted Mr. Klein as saying isn't nearly strong enough. By the way, what he said about Lieberman goes for almost everyone in the Bush administration and the current Republican party.

Lieberman continues to move the goalposts for what he is willing to accept. It's obvious his primary interest is gaining influence and settling scores.

Mr. Lane, I suggest you visit the world beyond Georgetown, Bethesda and McLean. In the rest of America, there's double-digit unemployment and lots of people without insurance. Lieberman's games are having real effects...and yes, he is contributing, indirectly at least, to a lot of pain and suffering.

I applaud Ezra Klein for calling him out on this and not resorting to the natural DC instinct of protecting your own (as you, Mr. Lane, are doing).

I agree with Lane here; Klein was out of line. However in checking through Lane previous articles it doesn't seems as if he has had any similar issues with conservative hyperbole. I see no criticism of "death panels" or the "march to socialism". Palin's contention that Obama would have killed her Down's Syndrome Child didn't seem inspire Lane to publish any objections.

I despise the use of inflammatory rhetoric no matter who uses it. But it is hard for me to criticize what I see as the occasional use of it by liberals in contrast to the occasional use of sane discourse coming from conservatives these days.

TO: charlietuna666 who wrote:
"40% Support Health Care Plan, 56% Oppose It Fifty-six percent (56%) of U.S. voters now oppose the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That's the highest level of opposition found - reached three times before - in six months of polling."
_______________________

Ever since Bush stopped lying to the Republifreaks, the Republifreaks just keep lying to themselves.

Here we go again: Charlie, you are not the majority, you don't hold the majority, and the American People overwhelmingly support health care.

You can keep saying it all you want, but only the wacko right wing Republican psycho nut cases of the craziest kind will believe you.

Joe Lieberman is taking money from the insurance companies in exchange for Lieberman's "No" votes.

Given Mr Lane's defending of Sen Lieberman's honor, I wonder if he would explain what, Sen Lieberman is offering to promote the universal coverage he purportedly supports? If the public option is out, and expanding medicare is out, what is in?

1) Ezra was far too kind to lie-berman, and has been for way too long. I hate to say 'we told you so' about Joe, but what else can we really say?

2) Goodwill on both sides of debate? Really? Are you that ignorant? It's been made clear, by actions and straight admissions, that one side of this debate is only interested in the politics. 'Getting' Obama, waterloo,...

We all know the post's editors hates when the gov spends money on things that help its citizens, but reflexively protects special interests (defense, drug makers, ins companies). And, we get that thier ads fill your pages. But, you don't have to make fools of yourself over it...

This is certainly not the first instance where an insistence on decorum has appeared against a backdrop of unecessary carnage. Certainly the debate over the Iraq war included many people decrying the incivility of protesters while blithely defending "Shock and Awe"

Leiberman says he supports "legislation that expands access to the millions who do not have coverage, improves quality and lowers costs while not impeding our economic recovery or increasing the debt." But when presented with such legislation that either includes any sort of public option or Medicare buy-in, he doesn't support it.

So, the deaths of the uninsured are not as important to Joe Lieberman as is stopping any kind of public option or Medicare buy-in. That's what Klein is saying and it is irrefutably true.

This might offend Lane's delicate "PostPartisan" sensibilities, but that doesn't make it any less irrefutably true.

I recall Sen Mitch McConnell speaking at a rally where the health plan was compared to the concentration camps of Nazi Germany. While McConnell claimed he didn't see it, that claim doesn't reach the standard of plausible denial. The "best" McConnell could come up with was IF they were there it was perhaps inappropriate.

Sen Lieberman has no problem sending Billions every year to Israel. Israel has a national health care system; Lieberman isn't troubled by that. Israel has elective abortions and a real bureaucratic death panel that reviews each request for an abortion before it's rubber stamped for approval. Lieberman [nor Sen Bill Nelson] has a problem with that.

56% of the voters in CT want a public option. http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/11/12/q-poll-liebermans-opposition-to-public-option-not-popular-in-connecticut/

Sen Liebermann doesn't care about his constituency ... unless you mean his constituency are the insurance companies based in CT.

The Democrats should kick Liebermann out of the caucus and chairmanship and let the GOP have him.

Is the compassionate, caring Charles Lane in this article the same Charles Lane who in another article today advocates a rollback of the minimum wage?

"In his next article, Charles Lane will tell us why the 13th Amendment to the Constitution should be repealed so that rich white people can provide room and board for all those poor African Americans who are out of work."
Posted by: sasquatchbigfoot | December 14, 2009 1:29 PM
======
Well I guess we know who wrote Harry Reid's Senate floor speech last Monday.

"[Lieberman] simply opposes the public option, as well as Harry Reid's last-minute improvisation on Medicare."

No, Lieberman doesn't "simply oppose" these things. He opposes them TO THE EXTENT THAT HE IS WILLING TO KILL THE WHOLE BILL (and 150,000 Americans as a result) if they're included.

There are a lot of things I "simply oppose." But I'm willing to concede the point on most of them, if something more important is at stake. That's what decent people do.

But Lieberman doesn't seem to share that outlook. Even though something much more important is at stake - like the lives of 150,000 Americans - he's willing to let them die rather than give any ground on these things he "simply opposes."

If holy joe supports "legislation that expands access to the millions who do not have coverage, improves quality and lowers costs while not impeding our economic recovery or increasing the debt." where is his alternative? A robust public option or the medicare buy in option helps HCR do these things. He is mindlessly opposing his own leadership on PROCEDURAL votes, not substantive ones. Too bad Conn doesn't have recall votes for senators.

Klein's "outrageous smear of Lieberman, posted earlier today by youthful policy wonk Ezra Klein"? First of all, it was not outrageous at all. Leiberman has demonstrated over and over again that he will support the democratic position ONLY when it doesn't matter. If democrats ever NEED his vote, it won't be there. He is despicable. He should join the republican party (he probably rightly thinks it would be more difficult to get elected). Leiberman was the reason Gore lost the election in 2000.

Lieberman does whatever it takes to get attention. He craves attention. So, the more outlandish he can be, the more media exposure he gets. Much like the less than esteemed Senators of Oklahoma--just love to be seen and heard, but in order to get that exposure, they must continually show themselves as the odd man out. The thing is, they don't do so with any intelligence backing it. They just all appear foolish. The best the American public can do is vote these kind of people out of office!!

What is the worst of the politics is, I believe, that Obama bucked the base to help joe win the election after his base booted him out of the party.

So, Joe (who was a contender for the presidency) got chased out of his party, while Obama helped save his rear end. Then, he repays Obama with a knife in the back.

He had medicare buy-in as a policy in his presidential run. He has a president who helped save his rear when he was down. And, he's willing to have hundreds of thousands die to get back at some bloggers? That could be the definition of sick.

If there's personal politics at play, it's joe hating the world. He is just a jerk, from what I can tell. There's no honesty, just 'venom'.

Even as you agree with Klein, you take issue with the way he says it. This is more than a bit dishonest on your part. It may be a debate about policy, but this policy is one that means life or death for tens of thousands of Americans. You pretend that fact is unimportant. At least Klein approaches his reporting with a backbone rooted in morality.

On the other hand, it is hard to tell what your comment is rooted in. You grant Klein the substance of his critique and then you poo-poo it on the basis that it is impolite.

Reporters used to care more about the truth and justice than they did about being nice to politicians. Between your take and Klein's, I will hope he is the future of journalism and you are the past.

It's enrollment time for your medical insurance. Take a good look at it. Mine is going up 16%. That's not just the portion I pay, that's the whole insurance policy. My portion is going up 33%, in one year. Then take a look at your other choices. Other choices? My employer chose the plan. It's my way or the highway.

Mr. Lane writes "Klein's outburst only makes sense if you assume that there is one conceivable way to expand health insurance coverage, and that Harry Reid has discovered it."

While Mr. Klein's criticism may be excessive, in practice Mr. Lane cannot be unaware that passing a health care plan that will cover those currently uninsured is politically difficult, and that the current democratic plan, with all its flaws, is the only one that will succeed in accomplishing that goal.

Joe Lieberman has decided that stopping the public option is worth the lives of tens of thousands of Americans. And you consider him a "person of good will"? What kind of world do you live in? If Lieberman doesn't like the public option, he can vote against it if he wants to. But filibustering because he doesn't agree with it 100%?

What I find amazing, is how the wealthy get the less fortunate folks to vote against their best interests. And thousands of people out protesting to defend the rights of the healthcare trillion dollar corporate empires??? How does that happen?

Ezra Klein was absolutely right. Just take a look at how Lieberman has changed his arguments on health care over the last few months. Joe Lieberman is in active competition for the most hypocritical thing that ever mumbled its way into the Senate. Right now he has no principles that can be derived from his behavior other than of venomous opposition fueled by spite. Flipping and Flopping, arguing against what he himself cliamed to believe in the recent past! As a Jew, watching him,a so-called religious man, his immoral behavior on this issue pains me deeply. He is all SPITE and BLUSTER and LIES.

Charles Lane wrote: "Joe Lieberman does not oppose insuring everyone. Indeed, he is ON RECORD favoring "legislation that expands access to the millions who do not have coverage, improves quality and lowers costs while not impeding our economic recovery or increasing the debt." He simply opposes the public option, as well as Harry Reid's last-minute improvisation on Medicare." (My emphasis)

Lieberman was on record supporting a Medicare buy-in too. Why don't you apply some skepticism to his new-found problems over the Medicare option for 55-64 year olds? What Lieberman is on record supporting is irrelevant to what position he takes at any minute - he is totally devoid of any principle except opposing Democrats and liberals in particular.

Congrats, everyone. These are by far the most reasonable and smart comments I've read on here for a long time (no sarcasm at all). I guess all the crazy Palin-ites stayed home. So refreshing. I agree with all the anti-Lieberman and anti-Lane comments above and would add this to Lane: Your article screams PETTY, just as Lieberman's actions do. Is this the first time you realized that people share their viewpoints in their editorials? You should edit out the "youthful policy wonk" comment immediately. If you don't agree with Klein, fine. But attacking him personally is absurd and inappropriate. Youth has nothing to do with anything. It's a politician's passive agressiveness to stick in inappropriate adjectives. If you want to take a stupid position, at least just take the position and leave the "youthful" comments behind.

Mr.Lane,
Please find another line of work. I've been wondering for years why the Post editorial page is so lousy and today you crop up in all your toadying Holy Joe ass-kissing glory. How about a doorman at Trump Tower or something? Seems better suited to your skills AND temperament.

Horsewhipping is far too good for Ivy League pansies like Lane, who are grossly overpaid by the Graham/Weymouth family of inheriting parasites to sit on their pampered glutes and fantasize about whether honest working people are "entitled" to this or that.

The problem seems to be that young Ezra sort of walked into the room and pointed out the pile of sh#t, which in Washington is a huge no no.

Listen, people die every year for lack of health coverage. Joe Lieberman used to be someone who knew this. Now, like a scorned ex-wife, he's lashing out at the Democrat party because of his petty anger over the 2006 elections, and he's willing to consign people in this country to the gas chamber (how's that for venom?) because of it.

It will require a war to gain any inch from the elite portion of our society, which the post editors and legions of lobbyists protect.

Want to stop needless death and suffering? It will require 60 votes, while playing whack-a-mole with your own caucus members popping up, not to vote against, but actually filibustering your own party's centerpiece legislation.

I'll quote someone smarter than myself: "This is a business run society."

It's true that this smear is over the top, but let's face facts, Lieberman is an odious politician. He has more in common with the vile Charles Krauthammer than the Democratic party. We progressives would like to see him gone!

Joe Liberman is the poorest excuse for a Democratic Senator that has ever served. I cringe everytime I see his mugg on TV. He really is a Republican and will continue to kiss the south end of John McCain. He is a disgrace.

Nice to see Joe still has people in the Village to circle the wagons for him. The irony is that Lane completely ignores that Joe has been lying about his reasons for opposing healthcare, then shifting position each time the lie is exposed.

That's not even touching on Joe's long standing cozy relationship with Big Insurance in his own state, and also his wives cozy jobs with Big Health over the years.

Chuck Lane: Exhibit R in who the WaPo has become a joke. Mrs. Graham would be rolling over in her grave at what he kids and grand kids have done to the paper.

tuttlegroup, please don't insult Lieberman! He is not a Democrat. He's an Independent.

Democrats are now controlled by the "progressives" (Marxists) and their only goal is to force us to swallow Marxism through lies, manipulation, intimidation, coercion, bribes, and SCAMS like Obamacare and cap and trade.

There should be no Lieberman smear campaign, because spineless Joe shouldn't have this kind of influence. He is an unctuous sleazy, anything for my insurance company buddies politician who should never have been treated with the respect Obama showed him. After campaigning against his own party and presidential candidateand siding with Republicans on almost every unprincipled snit fit they have, he should be stripped of his chairmanship. As for the wingnuts still trying to square the circle of calling Obama a socialist fascist, I'd remind those Republicans about which party published a "purity test".

No one should feel sorry for Lieberman. Senator Lieberman is a selfish, self-serving man, ego-maniac, who likes to sell his service to the highest bidder. Instead of being called Senator Lieberman, a better name for Lieberman should be SENATOR GRINCH. That name suits him better because he is as loving and trustworthy as a crocodile. LIEBERMAN, which in German means Loving Person, does not define the senator--Grinch does!

Senator Lieberman has gone on record before in favor of expanding Medicare to those as young as 50. Even just 3 months ago he's voiced support for this position. For some reason, Mr. Lane declines to mention this. Why?

Perhaps Lieberman knows by now, as all informed Americans know, that CONVICTED FELON Robert Creamer has been working on the Obamacare SCAM for years, as we can see from his 2007 book, “Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win,” which outlines the guidelines for the scam.

Creamer wrote in his 2007 book:

* “We must create a national consensus that health care is a right, not a commodity; and that government must guarantee that right.”
* “We must create a national consensus that the health care system is in crisis.”
* “Our messaging program over the next two years should focus heavily on reducing the credibility of the health insurance industry and focusing on the failure of private health insurance.”

As per Creamer’s book, their main objective is NOT improving health care. It’s to advance their power through the “democratization of wealth” (socialism/Marxim) as per the teachings of Saul Alinsky.

Why is it that only Chuck Lane's response gets front page billing on the WAPO website? Isn't a little disingenous to highlight an attack on one of your fellow columnists without giving easy access to the column in question?

If conservative outrage is all it takes to make the WAPO front page, why even publish liberal columns at all? Why not link directly to one of the red state idiot commentators and then sublink to the column in question?

The smear campaign, run by the Marxist thugs in Chicago and conducted by their armies of ACORN-type “community organizers,” seeks to destroy opponents and advance Marxism.

Posted by: AntonioSosa

Exhibit A of what's considered an acceptable viewpoint at the modern WAPO, utter right-wing paranoid lunacy conspiracy theories. If I wasn't certained that you completely plagerized your sentiments from right-wing radio, I'd suggest you submit an application to Fred Hiatt.

Post writer Lane is correct on one count: the mere presence of this person - this Joe Lieberman - makes me want to upchuck.

On his epitaph, I think he could write with the most conviction: "Here lies Joe, who has gone to his just reward after making more people sick to their stomach than any flu ever contracted or imagined. Joe leaves us with great pride in that accomplishment."

he is on record favoring "legislation that expands access to the millions who do not have coverage, improves quality and lowers costs while not impeding our economic recovery or increasing the debt."

yes, and I am in favor of eating chocolate cake that will not only make me skinnier and reduce my blood pressure, but allow me to run a 6 minute mile.

this is so typical of pandering to an American public that wants more government services and lower taxes. and wants them both NOW! You think Leiberman's position is reasonable? what possible legislation could meet those concurrent goals? the answer is none, and therefore he will oppose anything, right along with the Republicans...

I've been waiting for a while to use this line.. Shouldn't the dems and the media be calling Senator Leiberman a MAVERICK?

LOL

I remember everytime Mccain went against his party. THe media and the democrats in congress all headed for the podium to praise McCain and label him a free thinking maverick

Shouldn't we do the same for Mr Lieberman?

LOL

Obamacare is going down in flames. He'll get a completely watered down bill that will included small provisions like removing the practice of excluding a person because of a precondition and other small items like this. Obama will claim this a first step and declare victory.

In turn, the democrats will probably suffer large losses in both Houses in 2010 and could lose control of one or both chambers.

There's a moral question at stake here -- as well as one concerning fairness.

It is simply a statement of fact that our health care system is the #1 source of personal bankruptcy in this country -- it undermines the economic security of families and working adults (not to mention their children).

It is also a statement of fact that there are thousands of preventable deaths in this country that aren't prevented, because we are more intent on protecting the profits of a few than we are in expanding the availability of care to everyone.

There are many ways that we could fix our health care system; streamlining inefficiencies, lowering cost for tax-payers and consumers, and expanding availability of insurance.

Yet Lieberman is holding out in the expectation of a big pay-off from the industry that he's protecting.

There is nothing factually inaccurate in saying that Joe Lieberman is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans when he holds health care reform hostage. This is equally reprehensible when one considers that the non-partisan CBO's OWN NUMBERS demonstrate that Lieberman is opposing measures like the public option that would effectively expand
coverage at the lowest possible cost to millions without compromising quality.

Lieberman is effectively saying that the lifestyles of his campaign contributors -- and future employers -- are more valuable to him than the economic well-being and the lives of his constituents.

That reality may be stark and disconcerting, but that doesn't make it any less true.

"Let me repeat: Klein essentially accuses Lieberman of mass murder because he disagrees with him on a policy issue about which there is considerable debate among people of good will across the political spectrum."

NO.

Is there disagreement among people of good will on the point that being without health insurance causes thousands of people to die each year? Not to my knowledge.

Then Lieberman's willingness to block a vote on health insurance does, in fact, give him a share of the responsibility for the deaths of those who he would deny it to.

The important thing here isn't that Lieberman disagrees with something Klein supports; the important thing is that Lieberman would deny health care to millions of Americans, resulting in the deaths of thousands of them, because he disagrees with relatively small parts of the bill.

Decent people won't sacrifice the lives of thousands of others over relative trivialities. Lieberman apparently would. That's what makes him a moral monster.

Klein is a moron. I would not even give him the credit of being a policy wonk, accusing Lieberman of mass murder is the equaivalent of those on the left accusing Bush of sticking blacks on prison camps after Katrina. Lieberman opposes this plan because he does not want the government permanently involved in the plan, he wants deficit neutral free market solutions to HC.

When Sarah Palin said that cost cutting in a government run health care plan would eventually lead to panels deciding who lives and who dies, she was ridiculed as caribou barbie out of her mind on the tundra (even though democrats were quietly removing the panel language from the bill).

And yes McCain was the liberals' favorite for his maverick views bucking the Republican establishment.

But when a long time independent minded Senator, and their party's former vice-presidential nominee to boot, dares to question the wisdom of the Pelosi-Reid hodge-podge of government mandates, Medicare cuts while expanding Medicare, and piling on of trillions more debt, well to democrats he is morally equal to a mass murderer.

It's a good thing you folks aren't serious. Very funny. You had me going there for a moment.

Ezra Klein is right on! Shame on Lieberman, he does his name no justice. He will be responsible for the deaths of thousands. He has shown time and again he is more interested in his own aspirations than those of the people of this country. He is a self serving traitor.

Thought I'd share this video of Lie-berman being for the provision 3 months ago, which is now needing to be filibustered by him:
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/video-watch-lieberman-endorse-medicare-buy-in-three-months-ago/

What a slime ball, Ezra was too easy on him. Chuck Lane must apologize now!!!

Democrats have not listened to the vocal majority, or worked with Republicans through this whole sorry affair. Then they get to the end of the road and “surprise”, they don’t have the votes to pass their irresponsible health care takeover.

The Democratic plan, has been much like that of a home invader, sticking a gun to your head and demanding your cash. Doctors, patients, insurers, pharmaceutical and device manufactures, were instructed to “get down on your knees and co-operate.”

Obama is an inexperienced hack, who has despite his lofty hyperbole, has used divisive, threatening, and inflammatory rhetoric to try to ramrod his irresponsible policies through congress. Any politician, who has demonstrated that they are a staunch supporter of Obama, will be political poison going forward. While it may be debatable if the country leans right, it is clear that Americans will certainly never accept the socialist prescriptions of this President.

Consider today the high water mark of the repressive tax-and-give-away policies of the Liberals. Over the next decade we will see the size of the federal government shrink and we will bring government promises in line with affordability.

Listing senators who are paid off my insurance companies and big pharma, just like Lieberman, is no defense. In addition to the unnecessary deaths of Americans who have no insurance, Lieberman has promoted murderous policies in the Middle East and he hates Muslims.

The assymetry between Klein's simple reporting of the truth and the faux outrage by Lane is stunning. Lane's post is supported by an outrageous lie, that Lieberman is just engaging in a serious policy debate. How can a newspaper survive by printing such obvious falsehoods? The facts are so obvious. Anyone can tell by Lieberman's shifting and quickly abandoned "positions" on health care that he is not engaging in policy debate but simply trying to block any reform that doesn't increase the insurance companies' obscene profiteering.
Somebody (a recently bought-out legitimate Post journalist?) should write a book explaining how one of the finest newspapers in the United States devolved into the incoherent anti-journalistic mess the Washington Post has become. The domination of the editorial page by right-wing stenographers like Lane has to have some kind of great tragic story behind it. Over the last two decades the abandonment of professionalism and intelligence in favor of cultivating the non-reality-based readership can't have boosted circulation, can it? (People like that already had The Washington Times and Free Republic to read, and Limbaugh and Hannity to watch and listen to.) Btw, how is the Post's circulation these days? Is hiring people like Lane paying off big?

Mr. Lane - Senator Lieberman supported opening Medicare to those under 55 just three months ago. So how is he being principled now to switch? You admit he is driven by pique.

Is there something somehow untoward about acknowledging that people die because they don't get health care? Or do you not know that people without insurance don't have cancer diagnoses and treatment done in the emergency room?

You owe Ezra Klein an apology. He is one of the few WP writers who actually know something about public policy.

In case you haven't followed events which it looks like you haven't, Joe has increased his position every time the bill has moved forward. Joe is in it for Joe and no one else. This is his mantra, Joe ubber alles. Why we in any state would allow this so called person to represent any state is beyond me.

Lieberman had no problem sending thousands of American boys to their unjustified deaths in Iraq to support Israel's Jewish Jihadist so don't be so cavalier about Lieberman's motives! One fact is certain. Mr. Lieberman is a very dangerous man. CT Resident

It's quite simple really the standard MO of the left is when someone is RIGHT and they DON'T HAVE THE FACTS they go to their HATE.....you know "your a racist" "your a murderer" etc. THEY are BITTER PATHETIC human pieces of waste which is why ONLY 19% call themselves liberals while 40% call themselves Conservative. OBTW that number will be in the 60's by 2010-2012.

If there is one thing Conservatives know it ONLY takes 2 years of full control by LEFTISTS to DISGUST the American public and TURN the tide!

Joe Lieberman has more DIGNITY in his pinkie finger then those LEFTISTS who surround him on Capital Hill!

But last time I checked, Joe Lieberman does not oppose insuring everyone. Indeed, he is on record favoring "legislation that expands access to the millions who do not have coverage, improves quality and lowers costs while not impeding our economic recovery or increasing the debt."

So why doesn't he come up with a plan of his own that meets the standards mentioned above ??, if you do not like the proposed solutions then offer your own solutions. The typical politician he is, he states something a goal that is obvious to everyone but he does not offer a way to reach that goal, and in the mean time he just says "no, I do not like what is being proposed here ". This is why these damned professional politicians are so useless and worthless, they have already made up their mind before they even examine what is offered, they are going to say no because of this and no because of that, but they will not offer any ideas or solutions of their own. May the stupid democrats who voted for this guy learn a lesson here.

Hooray for Ezra Klein. He's telling it like it is. Too many right-wing apologists like yourself on the WaPo website, Mr. Lane. And your opinion counts for precisely nothing with the American people, who are getting angrier and angrier at the scum, like Lieberman, who WANT people to keep on dying for lack of access to affordable health care.

Had Joe been a republican and he did to them what he's been doing to the Democrats for a long time, they would've ostracized him, shunned him and probably kicked his ass out of the party altogether. And that is because, sorry to say, has more guts than the Democrats. I'm a Democrat, who is perplexed at the weakness of my party, from the President down to...the rest, congressmen and others. I'm trying to understand the lack of backbone in my party, and why they are willing to put up with so much crap, not only from the Republicans and their nutjobs, but from our own closet-Republican Democrats, like the so called blue dogs and stomach-turning pieces of work like Lieberman, who is more Republican than many Republicans - but in an uglier form and shape. He is a judist who personifies the ugliest and most despicable kind of politicians. The guys reeks of treachery and deception and gives politics a worse name than it already has. Screw all the gutless excuses we hear from Democrats about tolerating this Benedict Arnold, and for once I'd love to see them MAN UP and treat this jerk the way he deserves.

One other remark to the hysterical individual who is lamenting all the dead people. I am a practicing surgeon and I never saw anyone die because of no insurance. I never refused an emergency patient and never asked insurance info prior to coming to the ER, so in what place does this horrible stuff happen?

One can see the writing on the wall. Just like Froomkin, Klein has upset the Necon stranglelock on the Editorial Board of the Post. Never mind that the editorial board's positions on the Iraq war havent exactly turned out too well. Never mind that they think that, as they said in their own editorial a while back, that Health Care for all wasnt a necessity. Klein not only brings a different voice, but he commits a bigger sin too. He suggests that someone in the Washington establishment just might not be completely concerned with just helping the American people. The great Joan Didion wrote about this nonsense years ago in a review of a Bob Woodward book. In her review, she pointed out that all the players in the political top level that Woodward discussed never did anything for a bad reason. No, they were saints all. Devoted to the general welfare. Not an evil or petty motive ever floated through their minds. Didion correctly called this narrative "Political Pornography." See in the line Lane is trying to sell us here Lane is "offended" because in Lane's heart of hearts he knows good old Joe isnt blocking health care cause his precious feelings are hurt. Nor is he in the pocket of the insurance companies. No, Joe loves us all! He just wants the bill to do the right thing. Isn't it obvious?

Just like Lane previous post on post Partisan rejecting the study that showed that lots of people in America dont have enough to eat. After all, if I recall correctly, Lane had seen fat people in the streets! Ipso fact, the study had to be exagerated. You know that if Lane saw someone hungry he would just provide him with his lunch, dont you? Or how about lowering the minimum wage like Lane proposed today and last week. As Lane said in his original post, he just wants to help all those poor black teenagers who cant get jobs. I bet that Lane goes to bed every night crying his eyes out over that. You doubt that Lane might not have that motive? You think that Lane might be shilling for the Chamber of Commerce? How dare you! Lane cares for those kids, yes he does. Just as much as Joe cares for all those 47,000 Americans who die every year because of lack of health care.

What an anti-intellectual bullying coward you are, Mr. Lane. Afraid to engage Mr. Klein on the issues, you:

a) imply that he's lost his mind;

b) try to use his youth against him when you can't debate him on the issues (hint: despite his youth, Mr. Klein makes the impression of actually knowing what he's talking about -- you, despite your age, don't);

c) are not, even when engaging Mr. Klein's actual point, that Sen. Lieberman's obstructionism risks the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans, actually disagreeing with Mr. Klein's characterization of the senator; and

d) are basically saying that Sen. Lieberman may well be engaging in payback for liberals' opposition to him and shilling for his home state insurance interests -- and apparently, you're finding no particular fault with that!

You, sir, are thus (according to your own words) covering for a senator whom you think is likely sacrificing the lives of Americans for pure spite and/or money interests. That is disgraceful, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Instead of writing your beltway pap about how the poor should accept lower wages, maybe you should try and read up on the issues -- like Mr. Klein has done -- and call out senators for the very real and very deadly consequences of their actions. Until you do that, you are nothing but the worst kind of pundit -- the ignorant and cowardly kind.

Fifty-six percent (56%) of U.S. voters now oppose the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That's the highest level of opposition found - reached three times before - in six months of polling.
===

FOX "News" polling is not scientific. Sorry goober!

Most Americans want real reform, the one that will be Medicare for everyone. They do not want the reform that will presented if Liberman gets his say.

If the healthcare bill does not pass, it will be the Democrats who are to blame for putting together a terrible bill. Perhaps they should stop screaming, ranting, insulting, and fingerpointing long enough to listen to the people who cannot support it. Maybe then a compromise can be reached where the uninsured can be covered without killing the economy and ballooning the deficit even further. These are not irrational or irresponsible concerns to have. Obama said healthcare reform could be done without increasing the deficit. Let's see it in writing.

Liebermann has trended lately toward being a gleeful underminer of Obama. He's so embedded in the pro-Israeli agenda, that undermining Obama (who is perceived as pro-Muslim by pro-Israelis) seems to provide Liebermann with renewed sense of mission. Liebermann's exploiting the opportunity to thwart Obama's agenda openly at the expense of many American lives, is his latest move of political antipathy toward Obama after opposing Obama's candidacy for President in 2008.

I don't consider myself a pro-Muslim, anti-Israeli sympathizer. In fact this post is coming from someone who sympathizes more with the Israeli position than the Palestinian, re: Gaza, Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Good Grief, you Lying Libtards never stop with the Lies. You act as if under Obamacare there will be NO deaths anywhere, anytime!

Charles Lane -a right winger??!!?? That's almost as stupid as you Freaky Libs predicting the death of the GOP. LOL - With Obama nosediving like an Iraqi fighter jet, he'll be lucky if he is even nominated for a second term.

As usual with you Moron Libs, you are masters at how to ruin a country economically, politically, ethically, ad nauseum. How's Pelosi workin' out for ya? What is she - about 12% approval rating - How about Reid? He won't even be re-elected in his own State. Oh, yeah - Democrats forever - Buwahahahahah!

If Sen. Joe Lieberman is motivated to anything, no matter how trivial, to obstruct health care reform in this country because of some need to "pay back" those Democrats, who recognized him for what he is, i.e., a DINO, than I consider him to be the scum of the earth. Like every Senator, Lieberman's primary obligation is to put his personal interests aside and to do whatever he can to advance the common good of the American people. If he takes any action contrary to the common good because of a desire for revenge or any other personal desire, then his constituents ought to remove him from the Senate at their first opportunity. Until then, the Democratic leadership should take every measure available to render him meaningless. Parenthetically, it's time for the Senate to abolish most of its archaic rules, which allow one individual to thwart the will of the majority. Certainly, the Founders never envisioned a Senate held captive by one Senator.

I don't get it. Lane actually *agrees* with Klein's thesis. He writes (above):

"I understand that he seems to bear a grudge against the Democratic liberals who tried to unseat him in 2006 because of his vote for the war in Iraq, and that he might be engaged in a little pay back right now."

That was Klein's entire point.

What's Old-fart Lane crying about, anyway? The fact that Klein reminded everybody that tantrums like Lieberman's can have real-world costs -- not only in dollars, but also in lives?

Lieberman is a super pious fraud who betrays his fellow humanity at great personal reward to himself. This defense of Liar Joe Lie-berman shows how the Villagers reward evil. “Must defend the traitor!” by Charles Lane, a so-called “journalist” who is nothing more than a think tank paid liar.

But notice how quick Lane and the others are to protect Lie=berman even as Lie=berman betrays the poorest and most defenseless among us. If people who are not covered want Joe Lie=berman’s vote, then they can pay him and his wife just like the Insurance industry does.

Don’t worry: Joe’s betraying vote goes to the highest bidder with total sanctimony that makes Lane weep the way the rest of us weep seeing Martin Luther King’s “I have a Dream” speech. Lane and Lie man have a “Dream” to betray the poor and helpless and make themselves wealthy doing so.

A poll of Democratic voters showed that over 80% favored a public option in the health care bill. As Democrats control Congress and the White House, we ought to get what we want just like the Republicans did, when they controlled those institutions.

I'm going to put this the way people of good will should: we should start over and cram single-payer (by 51 votes) down the mouthpieces of the insurance industry. What's good enough for the civilized world is good enough for me. As for Joe, and you, and anyone else who doesn't like it, you are free to leave the country at any time.

And, if that doesn't happen, you are free to cheer on the victory of the fat cats and hope sometime they will brush a few crumbs off the table so that you can lick them up. And, I'll be polite.

Of course murder and gross negligence are very different moral things as Charles Lane knows. Ezra Klein did not accuse Lieberman of advocating mass murder and it's Charles Lane who is guilty of the partisan screed in suggesting he did.

Your paper if filled with editorials advocating grossly negligent policies that result in thousands of death (climate change isn't real, the Iraq War is a good idea) so I think Charles Lane protests too much. It would certainly be awful for the Washington Post editors if people started actually considering the second order costs of policies that you advocate.

Klein is pointing out two important things. That Joe Lieberman's actions have real world consequences and that Lieberman's actions, based on available evidence, do not seem principled in anyway. In this regard, Klein's post is less "venemous" than it is fairly astute analysis of the situation. Many in the media often make the mistake of trying to achieve "balance" by giving each side equal time, but often fails to actually evaluate these claims. Doing so based on ideology is obviously problematic but what Klein is saying here isn't "Joe Lieberman is terrible because I disagree with his ideology" he is saying that Joe Lieberman is terrible because he is obstructing health reform with no other proposed solution. Lane notes that there are other ways to insure the uninsured, which may be true but they are not offered by Lieberman. Not only has Lieberman chosed to obstruct health care reform because of provisions he endorsed three months ago, but he obstructs health care reform (and in the process preventing more people from being covered which yes, actually has consequences to their health) while offering no alternative way forward. Klein does us a service by pointing this out. How does Lane's post help inform the public on the health care debate?

Charles Lane proposes an early Christmas present for the working poor this year...cut their pay. So, it's little wonder that he defends Lieberman working against the same group of people on health care reform. However, even Lieberman might find it hard to sink so low as to attack the wages of the working poor during a depression. Hopefully, this clown Lane's present will be a a little poetic justice and a pink slip for Christmas.

-- Reduce the federal minimum wage. In 2007, Congress enacted a three-step increase in the minimum wage, which was then $5.15 per hour. The final installment took effect in July, raising the rate to $7.25 per hour.

Actually, most of these commentators haven't gone far enough in blasting the traitorous Joe Lieberman. He's not just getting even with Democrats, he's protecting his wife, Hadassah's very lucrative lobbying jobs for drug companies and insurance firms. Joe's a traitor (once again) and he DESERVES to be stripped of any power as long as Democrats hold the keys!

Ahh, more discussions about Joe. You wanna know what Joe is like? Look up the YouTube clip of him announcing for his "Baruch" back when Obama campaigned for him in Connecticut. He looks slimier every time I see it, and I laugh harder every time, too.

"legislation that expands access tothe millions who do not have coverage..." like Obama subsidizing the uncovered to buy health insurance from Aetna, Joe's only contribution to alleviate the crisis. Can you imagine his bonus if this would occur. As Sylvester of Bugs Bunny fame would say, "you're despicable."

Thank you Mr. Klein for having the courage to speak the truth to the WaPo's republican mouthpieces. At least Klein's post had something to do with policy - and the fact that Sentator No is simply against HCR. Lane's is just an ad hominem attack. Does the paper even have an ombudsman?

Does anyone believe Joe Lieberman would have stayed a democrat if Johm McCain had won? I rest my case. For all practical purpose, the man is a sleazeball. Lieberman tells Mitch McConnell and the republicans everything that take place in democatic caucus meetings. He is a trojan horse. The senator from Aetna is a one man sleeper cell. I blame the democratic leadership in the senate and the president himself for not punishing this guy for his treason last november. Those so-called "60 votes" majority have accomplished nothing. Democrats deserve to lose at least 5 seats next november. I don't want to see those dixicrats/conservadems get reelected. A simple majority is much better than having those Zell Miller democrats around.

These comments are from the same guy who has such "compassion" for hard-working, lower income persons, he advocates reducing or abolishing the minimum wage. Actually Klein's figures may be too low. I read a column a couple weeks ago at "The New York Times," in which, as I recall, the person said about forty-five thousand people, a year, needlessly die because they lack health care insurance.

I really wish conservatives, whether pundits, politicians or ordinary people, who are opposed to all of their fellow human beings, legally in this country, having health care coverage, would give up their employer or government provided health care. Hypocrisy is not a virtue.

The simple truth about health care in this country is very very simple: this nation spends somewhere around 16% of its GNP on health care and the other so-called advanced nations spend somewhere between 8 and 11% of their GNPs on health care. If one wants to know why this state of affairs exists, they can simply look at how this nation spends its money and then look at how other nations spend their. Sadly no one wants to undertake such a useful exercise. While I cannot say for certain why they refuse to undertake such an exercise, I can say that the likely explanations are a combination of the influence of special interests and ideology. The losers in such a reality are ordinary hard working Americans.

Fifty-six percent (56%) of U.S. voters now oppose the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That's the highest level of opposition found - reached three times before - in six months of polling.

Lieberman is a pompous jerk whose conscience has been consumed by his ego and whose soul has been bought and paid for by the insurance companies in Hartford. He is the epitome of pettiness.

My only hope now is that the House Democrats send a signal to their cowardly counterparts in the Senate that they need to either grow a spine or not to bother showing up at conference.

If that doesn't work, I'd rather see the current reform effort explode and let the electoral chips fall where they may. With health care expected to consume 20% of GDP before the end of the next decade, I expect that will prove to be real expensive for certain fence-straddling politicians.

Mr. Lane, Klein was indeed too kind. Lieberman himself has proposed -- many times, over many years -- expanding Medicare to cover people under 65 but over the age at which insurance companies are willing to cover them (cover them at all, or cover them affordably).

Rachel Maddow played many a Lieberman clip on the night of December 14, 2009 so that viewers had the privilege of hearing him contradict himself over and over.

His opposition now is purely self-serving, piling up those "contributions" from insurance companies while people are dying from lack of coverage.

No love lost for Lieberman on this web site! I love it. Connecticut, I hope you see what you have done. You gave us Joe the Bummer. He campaigned for John-Karate Chop-McCain. Helped him loose. He was on Gore's ticket: Helped him loose. See a pattern? Now he's back working for the GOP again. The goal: stop at nothing to destroy the democratic agenda, no matter how popular or humanitarian. Leiberman is a GOP Trojan the dems can't seem to deprogram. Connecticut, it's up to you. Kick the bum out. It's time to get rid of the losers. This country could use a few victories after 8 years of downfall.

"Perhaps he's shilling for his home state insurance interests"? Perhaps? How can you doubt that his home state insurance interests are bankrolling him? I hope the good people of Connecticut show Joe Lieberman the way out of Washington when he's up for re-election. He's a closet Republican who can't tear himself away from McCain & Graham. The Democrats need to strip him of his chairmanship and let him go where ever it is that he thinks he belongs, because it sure isn't with the Democrats.

you libs are so funny when you get mad. To st50taw, Rasmussen has been the most accurate polling service out there over the last few years, but ok, lets take away Rasmussen and consider CNN's poll. According to CNN 34% support this bill. Gallup has it at 40%. Real Clear Politics has compiled all the polls, and combined they average less than 38%. What do you have to say about that?

I've been reading some of you silly libs comments, and thing that I keep reading over and over is the same sickening hyperbole that Ezra the PARTISAN PUPPET Klein used, which is that "how is he willing to let thousands of people die?" . YOu guys are pathetic, you are so blinded to your politics that you ignore what he said. He doesn't oppose covering 30 million people, he opposed the PUBLIC OPTION and the expansion of MEdicare.

You libs live in a very isolated world, the reality is most Americans Don't like you. Most Americans don't share your values, and we certainly don't want this stupid bill that does nothing to contain costs.

All progressive Democrats should now begin to wage war upon Joe Lieberman, the state of Conn, and everything that Joe Lieberman stands for. Stripping his chairmanship should only be the beginning. We should boycott all things Lieberman and all things Conn. He is waging a personal vendetta against the progressives and we should reciprocate! Then, if this Scoop Jackson of a President and his neo-Clintonian Chief of Staff don't get the message, we should vote elsewhere come 2012.

Even though he is an Independent, he's been handed a very powerful chairmanship in the Senate Homeland Security Committee (The largest Federal government agency, along with the largest budget.) that could have been given to someone who is a Democrat.

At this point I would need to ask Harry Reid -- Why Lieberman was handed this "plum job?"

I'm just very curious: in what way is this in any way illogical? Twenty-thousand people die a year from lack of health insurance. Joe Lieberman is willing to kill the bill for no reason that appears even marginally logical. His reasoning makes no sense. There are two possibilities left: he's still angry over losing his primary (poor baby) or he's angling for a nice lobbying gig with the insurance industry after he retires.

Either way, he is an amoral monster of a man. Thanks to Ezra for actually calling it as he saw it. Too bad you don't have the guts as well.

Oh, and Mr. Lane, perhaps if, like me, you had a recently unemployed friend who had to decide between seeing a doctor for a potential eye infection, or seeing a doctor for a potential ear infection; perhaps if you knew your father hadn't had health insurance in over 10 years, perhaps if you'd seen your younger brother be injured without ever going to a doctor to get checked out, you would understand why people have had enough with Joe Lieberman and his laughable B.S. But by all means, keep making excuses for a guy who appears to care only about himself.

And one last thing: I can't think of a more disgusting argument than "Well, yeah, his disagreement might be responsible for the deaths of thousands of people ... but everyone does it!" There's some deep thinking, right there.

He should have noted the $1 million that Judas Joe has taken from the insurance industry.

And that Judas Joe's wife was a PR hack for two pharmaceutical companies.

And why has the Washington Post not held Judas Joe's feet to the fire over his unexplained and inexplicable about-face on the expansion of Medicare?

"Democratic leaders noted that Mr. Lieberman on numerous occasions had voiced support for the Medicare buy-in proposal that he now wants dropped. It was part of a health care proposal that he championed as Al Gore’s running mate in the 2000 presidential race, and three months ago he expressed support for the same concept.

“What I was proposing was that they have an option to buy into Medicare early,” Mr. Lieberman says on a video distributed by Democrats on Monday.

"In the interview, he did not dispute that he once supported the idea but said he had not recalled that he had done so, or the context, until Mr. Reid’s office confronted him about it." ~ NY Times.

Judas Joe should be deported to his homeland of Israel -- where he can enjoy the mandatory, government-run, universal health care system.

Another thing to cheer you up, libs, now that Dirty Harry's caved and stripped out MC expansion...
The only study indicating anything near Klein's "hundreds of thousands" dying due to "uninsurance" (yes, that's what they called it) is an estimate from the Urban Institute noting that, as a percentage o population, more uninsureds die than insureds. No comparative study or data was offered detailing the different demographics, lifestyles or causes of death for these supposed additional deaths, only simple correlation. When one takes into account the lifestyle variables that cause one to go without health insurance in the first place, the flawed nature of using simple correlation becomes apparent.

Well over 100,000 deaths could also be prevented if people didn't visit their doctor or hospital. Kind of like the jobs created or saved argument. And the WHO statistics on healthcare where they don't take many factors into account. And Climategate. Attacking Lieberman and using this statistical argument to do it amounts to statistical malfeasance.

What an utter LIeberman apologist piece it reeks of inaccuracies, to include the terms "I" and "it." Certainly Lieberman is for health care, so long as the insurance companies can gouge us. Of course Lieberman wants sunshine for everyone, but he doesn't want anyone to open the shades. Obviously Liebermann sees no problem with the debt relative to sustaining the Iraq or Afghanistan war, so long as America continues to provide Nation-State welfare to Israel. Heckuva job Joe!!!

The insurance companies are winning again, and Americans are again too stupid to understand their own best interests. Just as in the early 90s, when a majority supported everything in the Clinton health care reforms but opposed anything called the "Clinton health care reforms," a majority supports everything in the Obama health care plan, but oppose anything called the "Obama health care plan." On the whole, we're a nation of dupes who deserve the continued decline that our brainless support of InsuranceCare has caused.

There is considerable debate to be had on the medicare buy-in. But the reasons Lieberman has stated in opposition to this as well as the public option don't add up. That's the point. Maybe it's some political theory about "small government" that works better in theory than in practice. I at least understand where many on the GOP side of the aisle are coming from even though I disagree with their conclusion.

With Lieberman - he supported these policies in the past. So his opposition now seems completely opportunistic (he is the only Dem threatening a filibuster over it) and raises the worst kind of suspicions...the kind Klein articulated. He's either doing for it personal reasons to stick it to the Democratic party and liberals. Or he's so beholden to the insurance lobby that he is willing to filibuster a cornerstone Democratic party goal and the most significant domestic policy initiative since LBJ's time. And in doing so he is perfectly fine killing bill that will lower the deficit over 10 years and improve the health of millions of people.

And in a side issue that doesn't matter to anyone outside the party, he did kind of screw Harry Reid and his fellow Democratic senators by skipping the meetings and allowing this proposal to go forward without voicing opposition and then announcing his opposition to it on a Sunday talk show before any analysis was even done on it.